Compositions of fine fescue grasses for use as turf in airfield management

ABSTRACT

A composition suitable for airfield management comprises fine fescue grasses that result in environmental benefits, including protection of human life and wildlife; decreased mowing, to deeper and larger root systems and tremendous financial savings. One preferred version includes: (a) about 25-50% by weight Hard Fescue; (b) about 25-50% by weight Creeping Red Fescue; and (c) about 25-50% by weight Chewings Fescue.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 13/409,362,filed on Mar. 1, 2012, which will issue on Jul. 29, 2014 as U.S. Pat.No. 8,789,310, and which claimed the benefit of prior-filed U.S.Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/447,909, filed on Mar. 1,2011, the subject matter of both being incorporated by reference intheir entirety herein.

FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT

The present invention was not developed with the use of any FederalFunds, but was developed independently by the inventors.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The field of the present invention relates to methods of improvedmanagement of airfield grasses, including areas both inside and outsideof airport operation. More particularly, the invention relates to theuse of selected seed mixes of fine fescue in order to reduce both theamount of mowing and the presence of wildlife resulting in majorenvironmental, economic and safety benefits. The invention also relatesto methods of improved management of roadsides, utility transmissioncorridor rights-of-way, golf courses, parks, campuses, cemeteries andother low traffic areas where low maintenance, short turf grass andwildlife control are desirable.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

An aerodrome, (or airdrome) or airfield is a term for any location fromwhich aircraft flight operations take place, regardless of whether theyinvolve cargo, passengers or neither. The terms are used inInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) documents, for examplein the Annex to the ICAO Convention about aerodromes, their physicalcharacteristics and their operation. The term “airport” is also used inthe aviation industry. There is not a clear difference in meaningbetween the two terms in colloquial usage; however, the term airport mayimply a certain stature (having satisfied certain certification criteriaor regulatory requirements) that an aerodrome proper may not haveachieved. That is to say, all airports are aerodromes, but not allaerodromes are airports. As used herein, the terms “airport”,“airfield”, or “aerodrome” shall be used interchangeably within themeaning of the invention.

Airports are divided into landside and airside areas. “Landside” land isairport land that is outside of the runway areas within the airport.Landside areas include parking lots, public transportation trainstations, tank farms, grassy areas, mowed turf, access roads and areasalong highways near airports. “Airside” land usually refers to landalongside of runways within the airport. Airside areas include all areasaccessible to aircraft, including runways, taxiways, ramps and tankfarms. Access from landside areas to airside areas is tightly controlledat most airports. Passengers on commercial flights access airside areasthrough terminals, where they can purchase tickets, clear security,check or claim luggage and board aircraft through gates. The waitingareas which provide passenger access to aircraft are typically calledconcourses, although this term is often used interchangeably withterminal.

A lawn is an area of aesthetic and recreational land planted withgrasses or other low durable plants, which usually are maintained at alower and consistent height. In recreational contexts, the specializednames turf, pitch, field or green may be used, depending on the use ofthe field and the continent. Many different species of grass are used,depending on the intended use and the climate. For example, coarsegrasses are used where active sports are played, and finer grasses forornamental lawns looked upon. Some grasses adapted to oceanic climateswith cooler summers and others to tropical and continental climates withhotter summers. Often a mix grass or low plant types is used to form astronger lawn when one type does better in the warmer seasons and theother in the cooler climates.

According to a study from the University of Illinois and report entitledSpecies, Endophytes and Wildlife—A Primer on Turf Management forAirports, by Bruce Branham, Theresa Kissane, and Edwin Herricks,(Departments of NRES and CEE, University of Illinois, it is estimatedthat since 1988, global wildlife strikes have been responsible for atleast 163 aircraft strikes and resulted in the death of more than 194people.

The FAA wildlife strike database has recorded over 121,000 (Civil andUSAF) wildlife strikes between 1990 and 2010. During the five yearsbetween 2006 to 2010, there was an average of 26 strikes reported eachday. As global travel increases every year, it is estimated that thenumber of strikes increases accordingly. Most alarming is that the FAAestimates that only 20% of wildlife strikes are reported.

Branham et al. report that birds were involved in 97.5% of the strikes.The reported strikes increased from 1,744 in 1990 to 7,236 in 2005. From1990 to 2005, 695 strikes involved deer, and 79 involved reptiles. Thewhite-tailed deer population has increased from 0.3 million in 1900 to17 million in 2005. From 1980 to 2005, the resident Canada goosepopulation has risen 7.9% each year. Over the same time period, thepopulation of the red-tailed hawks increased 1.9%; the population ofwild turkeys increased 12.7%; the population of turkey vulturesincreased 2.2%; and the population of double-crested cormorantsincreased 4.9%. FIG. 1 illustrates the incidents of wildlife strikesfrom 1990 to 2005, Table 1 demonstrates the recorded statistics of thestates with the most reported wildlife strikes. FIG. 2 is a graphicrepresentation illustrating the time of year when most wildlife strikesoccur in the United States.

TABLE 1 States with the Most Reported Bird Strikes, 1990-2005 STATENUMBER OF STRIKES California 5590 Florida 4447 Texas 4245 New York 3632Illinois 3139 Pennsylvania 2335 Ohio 2119

Deterring birds from water on or near airports is an important part ofmany bird strike reduction programs. The FAA has made a significanteffort of deterring birds from the ponds and waterways near airports.Overhead wires made with various materials and in a variety of patternscan reduce bird use of such areas, although the costs of such effortscan be substantial. As part of a study to determine whether increasingthe spacing of grid wires reduces material and initial labor costs whilestill deterring birds, NRWRC researchers placed lines 50-feet apart overwastewater ponds in South Carolina and monitored bird usage. The totalnumber of waterfowl using the ponds increased. Canada goose numbersdeclined, while mallard, ring-necked, and ruddy duck numbers increased.

The National Wildlife Research Center (NRWRC) conducts research todevelop methods and provide guidance to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), airport operators, and the American publicregarding the mitigation of bird-aircraft strike hazards. NRWRC hasfocused its research on understanding the nature of wildlife hazards atairports, developing management tools to reduce those hazards, andproviding Wildlife Services' biologists, airport personnel, and FAAofficials with information on the latest strategies for controllingwildlife hazards.

In a NRWRC study in Illinois, lines 15-feet apart over narrow streams inthe State also showed no significant difference in total bird use beforeand after line installation. Mallards, great blue herons, and greategrets all used the protected areas. Waterfowl using the protected areasmight have perceived the overhead lines as protection from avianpredators. These findings show that an integrated approach is necessaryto haze birds effectively at protected locations.

Understanding how birds perceive and react to deterrent methods isimportant for controlling property damage and protecting human healthand safety, as well as preserving the aesthetic value of places sharedby birds and people. In a recent study, NRWRC researchers investigatedthe reaction of captive brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and rockpigeons (Columba livia) to a perching deterrent that caused slight painand the reaction of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) to an areadeterrent designed to provoke a fear response. Objectives of the studywere to determine (1) the efficacy of these two techniques, (2) thelatency of each technique, (3) if members of a flock would communicatethe apparent risk among themselves and to naive flock members, and (4)if the birds would habituate to the techniques. The results of thisstudy showed that both methods, when activated, were effective indisplacing birds. With each method, each bird had to experience thetechnique, as video observations showed no evidence of communicationamong flock members or to naive birds that were introduced to the flock.However, when researchers deactivated each method after an initialperiod of activation, birds returned to the protected areas. Nohabituation to either technique was observed. NRWRC proposes that theseresults indicate that the loss of comfort due to direct pain or theperception of risk due to chronic random stimulus remains a criticalcomponent in stimulating bird avoidance behavior.

Another current means of “wildlife management” at airports refers to thepractice of employing sharpshooters to kill any animal or bird that islocated on airport property or vicinity.

In 2009, following the USAir 1549 bird strike and emergency landing inthe Hudson River, the FAA started a number of initiatives to mitigatebird and wildlife strikes by airplanes. The FAA made its entire birdstrike database available to the public. Over the last three years theFAA has received 21,489 strike reports—7,545 strikes in 2008; 9,484 in2009; and 4,460 through July 2010.

The FAA issued a certification alert to airport operators on Jun. 11,2009, reminding them of their obligation under the FAA regulations toconduct mandatory Wildlife Hazard Assessments and the FAA providesAirport Improvement Program funds for assessments and for thedevelopment of a follow-up Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, if needed.

The FAA also has a working relationship with the Smithsonian that goesback to the 1960s, when the two agencies, along with the military andaircraft manufacturers, began working together to identify the birdspecies from remains after a strike. Bird identification helps airfieldpersonnel implement habitat management schemes that discourage birdsfrom airfields and provides information so aircraft manufacturers canbetter design engines and aircraft to withstand the impact of birdcollisions.

In 2001, the FAA began working with the United States Air Force todevelop a radar system for detecting and tracking birds on or nearairports. Because of the rapid development of avian radar, the FAAswitched its research focus and began evaluating commercially availableavian radar. Specifically, the FAA wanted to know how airport operatorscould use the technology to help implement their wildlife hazardmitigation programs.

For the last 15 years, the FAA and the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) have conducted a research program to make airportssafer by reducing the risks of aircraft-wildlife collisions. Theresearch efforts designed to improve wildlife management techniques andpractices on and near airports include methods for making airporthabitats less attractive to species that are the most dangerous in termsof aircraft collisions. This is accomplished by studying which speciesuse the airport property, how they behave in that environment, and whythey are attracted; techniques for controlling species by restrictingaccess to attractive features like storm water ponds; and technologiesfor harassing and deterring hazardous species.

The FAA cosponsors the Bird Strike Committee-USA as part of itscontinued public outreach and education effort to increase awarenesswithin the aviation community about wildlife hazards. This is aninternational forum where biologists, engineers, airline personnel, andothers come together to exchange ideas and learn about the latesttechnology to mitigate wildlife hazards.

The tremendous focus, effort, research, studies and current wildlifedeterrent techniques clearly illustrates that there exists a great needfor a safe, effective and sustainable method of deterrence to wildlifeat airports. The current invention introduces a turf management strategydescribed herein that makes great progress into addressing thiscontinuing need.

In most airport protocol, the field is composed of existing weedy turfgrass vegetation requiring regular mowing. Existing turf grassinstallations are input intensive, requiring high levels of labor andmaterials such as mowing, equipment, chemicals and fertilizers (forexample, petrocarbons), water, and energy, which are required in orderto properly maintain the airport runways and surrounding areas. Hence,in addition to being wildlife attractants, existing airfields can beenvironmentally destructive—contributing to massive overloads of stormwater runoff, pollution of our waterways and oceans, depletion ofgroundwater supplies, and additional green house gas emissions.

Existing airport turf grass installations typically include knownwildlife attractants such as bluegrass, rye grass and broadleaf annualand perennial weeds, which are problematic in that they are attractantsto grazing wildlife, such as geese, deer, and grasshoppers, all of whichare especially troublesome for airports. Other problematic animalsinclude (but are not limited to) rabbits, mice and other rodents,squirrels, groundhogs, as well as many other species of birds. Predatorssuch as fox, coyote, and hawks are attracted to the lower trophic levelsof animals, including insects, which are attracted to the typical weedyturf grass of airfields. These animals are all hazardous to aircraft.The Federal Aviation Administration attempts to discourage wildlife fromentering airside land by encouraging airports to specify less favorablelandside habitat conditions as one extra layer of protection. Theresulting environmental and economic impact demonstrates a currentlyunmet need in modern turf grass landscapes at airports.

At the 29^(th) Meeting for Bird Strike Committee, Bill Walmsleydiscusses best practices for establishing endophyte grasses at airports.(2010 Best Practice Guidelines for Novel Endophyte Grass Establishmentat Airports). The report, like others, discusses only tall fescues,ryegrasses and cool season turf grasses. Currently, tall fescues areused at some airports in an attempt to deter wildlife from theairfields. Other grasses commonly used for airport turf include Kentuckybluegrass as a cool season species and Zoysiagrass and buffalograss aswarm season turf grass species.

AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand's largest Crown Research Institute, anindependent state owned research and development company, investigatedthe use of endophytes in ryegrass and fescues for wildlife management,stating that the bird strikes cause a challenge of $1.5 billion to theaviation industry annually. Specifically, AgResearch Ltd. focused itsstudy on two turf species of grass—Jackal, a tall fescue variety, andColosseum, a ryegrass, which are now on the market through PGG WrightsonSeeds. The tall fescue was chosen for airfields and is being trialed atmajor airports in New Zealand. In May 2011, AgResearch and scientistChris Pennell received the DuPont Innovation Award that recognizes thecommercialization and outstanding science and technology in Australasia.

Despite the recent success and spreading popularization of tall fescues,the use of tall fescues does not resolve the various challenges ofairfield management as discussed herein. The tall fescues can grow toheights of 48 inches or more, and therefore require steady mowingresulting in a great economic burden on airports which carries intogreater costs of air travel to the consumer.

As the aviation industry is faced with potential for extensive loss oflife and property due to wildlife strikes each year, the frequency andconsequences of wildlife activity dictate that these occurrences remainin the forefront of every airport's wildlife management plan. Beyond theenvironmental, social and financial consequences of wildlife strikes, areport presented by Larry A. Dale at the Aug. 2008 USA/Canada Meeting ofthe Bird Strike Committee, goes further to outline the legal liabilityfaced by airports and their management. In addition to federal and statepolicies, the court system has also become involved to ensure thatairport management take steps to conduct accurate assessments and todevelop and implement an effective wildlife management plan for wildlifehazard mitigation.

According to the invention, it is disclosed herein that fine fescuesgrass species can be used successfully according to the invention toreplace existing typical airside and landside turf, which are often veryweedy wildlife attractants that require continuous mowing at airports.Current airfield turf grass maintenance necessitates continuous mowingto maintain the grass at acceptable heights. Not only does the mowingflush and mutilate insects and small animals and produce straw, both ofwhich attract hazardous wildlife to runway safety areas, but mowing alsois an energy and labor intensive practice that inherently increases thepotential for operational conflicts and safety risks with other groundequipment and aircraft on the airfield.

To date, with many national and global efforts to address the statedproblems, it has not been known to address the combined features ofwildlife deterrence and the need for reduced mowing resulting inimproved airfield management and the benefits of improved storm watercontrol, decreased pollution, decreased gas emissions, temperaturemoderation, biodiversity conservation and other safety, environmentaland economic benefits disclosed herein. The invention utilizes finefescues successfully grown on airfields in a manner never beforeappreciated and provides an operative result that had not been achievedheretofore.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Disclosed herein is an improved method of airfield management comprisinggrowing fine fescue grasses on the airfield and maintaining them asmonocultures free of weeds and other grasses. Weeds and other grassesserve as wildlife attractants and require regular mowing, the mowingprocess which itself serves as a wildlife attractant due to thedisturbance it creates. Such method results in reducing wildlife grazingon the airfields, reducing the predators that are drawn to the grazers,and the insects that are diminished due to control ofwildlife-attractant weeds and grasses, and reducing the maintenancerequired on airfields by the airports from an average 22 mows per yearto one mow per year. The fine fescue grasses of the invention areselected from hard fescues, creeping red fescues, chewings fescues,slender creeping red fescue, and/or combinations, blends and mixesthereof. Also disclosed is a method of improved turf managementcomprising the steps of seeding and growing fine fescue grasses, andmaintaining them as substantially weed-free monocultures to fulfill thetwo-fold goal of reduced mowing and wildlife deterrence.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing summary and the following detailed description of theinvention, will be better understood when read in conjunction with theappended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the invention, thereare shown in the drawings embodiments which are presently preferred. Itshould be understood, however, that the invention is not limited to theprecise arrangements and instrumentalities shown.

FIG. 1 is a graph showing the reported incidents of wildlife strikes inthe United States, as recorded between the years of 1990 to 2005.

FIG. 2 is a graph showing the time of year when most wildlife strikesoccur in the United States.

FIG. 3 is a histogram showing the frequency of birds counted on anairfield experimental plot containing the fine fescue grasses plantedaccording to the methods of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a histogram showing the frequency of birds counted on anairfield control plot.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The embodiments of the current invention encompass a novel method ofusing existing short turf-type grasses, particularly fine fescues whichhave the two-fold effect of eliminating both the high maintenance aspectof turf management and the wildlife attractant feature. Despiterecognition in the turf management field that endophytic grasses aredesirable, the use of fine fescues is heretofore unknown in airfieldmanagement. Embodiments of the invention require little, if any, mowing,little, if any, fertilization or watering, and reduced chemicals,gasoline and alternate energy sources, and reduced labor. In certainembodiments of the invention, wildlife avoid eating the turf, possiblydue to a naturally present or enhanced endophyte contained in the finefescue mixture of the invention. The result is reduced maintenance,reduced cost, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and increased safety inareas where wildlife poses a threat to humans, protecting both peopleand wildlife.

The embodiments of the invention are directed to the use of fine fescuegrasses for use in airfield applications. Fine fescue grasses includevarieties such as, but not limited to, chewings fescue (Festuca rubravar. conunutata), creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra var. rubra),slender creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra var. trichyophylla andFestuca rubra var. littoralis) and hard fescue (Festuca longifolia andFestuca brevipila). The use of all species, subspecies, genus,cultivars, blends and mixes of fine fescue grasses are within the scopeof this invention. As used herein based on common usage, a “blend” is aselection of several cultivars of the same species. A “mix” is theselection of more than one species. In the agricultural field, blendsare often used to increase biodiversity. One preferred embodiment of theinvention intended as a general purpose mix is a blend of differentcultivars of fine fescue grasses only.

It is known that fine fescue grasses are appropriate for northern “cool”and “transitional” climates where annual rainfall is of about 25 inchesor more, with at least half arriving during the growing season. Finefescues are not recommended for wet soils, compacted soils, or poorlydrained heavy clay soils. Fine fescue grasses usually thrive in full sunto partial shade on any reasonably well-drained soil, and areparticularly well suited to growing on dry, sandy or rocky soils withlow nitrogen levels. Fine fescues prefer a non-alkaline soil, or lowersoil pH. Because fine fescues are cool season grasses, they arerecommended for planting in northern and transitional climates of theUnited States and Canada (above approximately 37 degrees Northlatitude). They are also adapted to the coastal areas of the PacificNorthwest, the cooler mountain climates in the east-central states, andin the western mountains from the mid-elevation aspen woodlands to justbelow timberline. Chewings fescue is particularly tolerant of sandy,acidic, and infertile soils. Hard fescue is very cold hardy and lowmaintenance. A naturally short grass, it requires less frequent mowing.Creeping red fescue is used most widely, establishes early, and is themost aggressive creeper. Slender creeping red fescue is salt-tolerant.

The various varieties of existing fine fescues are often mixed, sold andutilized in blends with Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass inorder to add greater shade, drought tolerance, and quickerestablishment. However, it is preferred according to the invention notto combine the fine fescues with bluegrass or ryegrass for applicationon airfields because the bluegrass and ryegrass are wildlifeattractants.

All fine fescue varieties are contemplated and included within the scopeof the invention herein, including, but not limited to the followingnamed varieties: ‘Aurora’, ‘Bighorn’, ‘Claudia’, ‘Flyer’, ‘Ensylva’,‘Longfellow’, ‘Longfellow II’, ‘Marker’, ‘Medallion’, ‘Reliant’,‘Salem’, ‘Scaldis’, ‘Shademaster’, ‘Spartan’, and ‘Victory’, ‘TreasureII’, ‘Boreal’, ‘Spartan II’, ‘Intrigue 2’, ‘Zodiac’, ‘Navigator II’,‘Beacon’, ‘Radar’, ‘Fairmont’, ‘PSG 50c3’, ‘Sword’, ‘Epic’, ‘Gotham’,‘Lacrosse’, ‘IS-FRR-51’, ‘IS-FRR-62’, ‘IS-FRC-35’, ‘Cascade’,‘Aberdeen’, ‘PST-4CSD’, ‘PST-4HES’, ‘Bighorn GT’, Shademaster ‘PSG-5RM’,‘Pick FRC A-93’, ‘Treazure’, ‘PST-4HM’, ‘ACF 092’, ‘Shadow II’,‘Tiffany’, ‘Jamestown II’, ‘Magic’, ‘ABT-CHW-1’, ‘Pick FRC4-92’,‘Brittany’, ‘Ambassador’, ‘ABT-CHW-2’, ‘SR 5100’, ‘Banner II’, ‘ACF083’, ‘Bridgeport’, ‘BAR CHF 8 FUST, ‘MB-63’, ‘Culombra’, ‘Sandpiper’,‘ISI FRR7’, ‘ISI FRR5’, ‘ASC 082’, ‘JASPER SRX 52961’, PST-EFL’, ‘PathFinder’, ‘Shade Mark’, ‘ABT-CR-3’, ‘PST-47TCR’, ‘DGSC 94’, ‘ABT-CR-2’,‘Florentine’, ‘SRX 52 LAV’, ‘PST-4FR’, ‘ASC 172’, ‘ASC 087’, ‘Salsa’,‘BAR CF8 FUS1’, ‘Shademaster II’, ‘Common Creeper’, ‘Boreal’, ‘DawsonE+’, ‘ASR 049’, ‘BAR SCF 8 FUSS’, ‘Seabreeze’, ‘AHF 009’, ‘ISI FL 12’,‘Heron’, ‘ISI FL 11’, ‘Attila E’, ‘ABT-HF1’, ‘4001, SRX 3961’, ‘Osprey’,‘Rescue 911’, ‘Oxford’, ‘MB-82’, ‘AHF 008’, ‘ABT-HF-2’, ‘Pick FF A-97’,‘Bighorn’, ‘ABT-HF4’, ‘ABT-HF3’, ‘Nordic’, ‘Discovery’, ‘Reliant II’,‘DeFiant’, ‘BAR HF 8 FUS’, ‘Minataur’, ‘SR 3200’, ‘PST-4 MB’, ‘SR 6000’,‘QUATRO’, ‘Firefly’, ‘Rhino’, ‘Chariot’, ‘Beacon’, ‘Gotham’, ‘Predator,‘Bershire’, SR3000’, ‘Viking’, SR 3150’, ‘Eureka’, ‘Aurora Gold’,‘Berkshire’, ‘Epic’, ‘LaCross’, ‘7 Seas’, ‘Spartan II’, ‘Wendy Jean’,‘Zodiac’, ‘Aurora II’, ‘Intrigue’, ‘Edgewood’, ‘VNS’, ‘Triumph Lo Gro’,‘Seabreeze GT’, ‘Fotitude’, ‘Dawson E’, ‘Cardinal’, ‘BMXC-502’, ‘C-SMX’,‘Compass’, ‘Celestial’, ‘DP 77-9885’, ‘DLF-RCM’, ‘Garnet’, ‘J-5’,‘Musiva’, ‘CO3-4676’, ‘Classono’, ‘IS-FRR 23’, ‘Jasper II’, ‘Lacrosse’,‘Razor’, ‘Shademaster’, ‘Cascade’, ‘DP 77-9360’, ‘DP-77-9578’, ‘Oracle’,‘Pathfinder’, ‘Shoreline’, ‘Splendor’, ‘TL1’, ‘Zodiac’, ‘Ambassador’,‘Culumbra II’, ‘DP 77-9579’, ‘Seabreeze’, ‘DP 77-9886’, ‘PST-8000’,‘Reliant IV’, ‘Treazure II’, ‘Audobon’, ‘Berkshire’, ‘Oxford’,‘Predator’, ‘SR 3000’, ‘SRX 3K, ‘Scaldis’, ‘Rescue 911’, ‘Ecostar’,‘Viking’, ‘Stonehenge’, ‘Miser SCR’, ‘Shaker’, ‘Sealink’, ‘Henry’,‘Harpoon’, ‘Pennlawn’, ‘Frazer’, ‘Tiffany’, ‘ShadowII’, ‘Florentine GT’,‘Jamestown 4’, ‘Sealink’, ‘Lowgro’.

According to the method of the invention, a mix with a larger variety ofspecies can be selected, so that one or more will prevail. However, anyblend or mix of fine fescue varieties is operable within the scope ofthe invention and any species of which can be planted alone or incombination with any other species. The following characteristics usedto determine which fine fescue and percentages are appropriate include,but are not limited to: soil test results, site conditions, region, seedavailability and level of endophytic activity, height of cultivar, andlocal conservation district or municipal requirements.

The “creeping” fescues include Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra var.rubra) and Slender Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra var. trichyoplyllaand Festuca rubra var. littoralis). The “bunch forming” fescues includeHard Fescue (Festuca longifolia and Festuca brevipila) and ChewingsFescue (Festuca rubra var. commutata). The bunch fescues areexceptionally drought resistant, thrive in nitrogen poor soils, and havelow to moderate tolerance to heavy foot traffic. The creeping fescuesspread gradually by underground rhizomes to fill in areas between thebunch grasses to create a mono-stand of weed-resistant sod.

Hard Fescue (Festuca longifolia and Festuca brevipila): bunch grass;deep-rooted; most resistant to heat and drought of all the fine fescues;most tolerant of foot traffic of all the fine fescues; longer toestablish; attractive; does not adapt to close mowing. Chewings Fescue(Festuca rubra var. commutata): bunch grass; deepest green of all finefescues; most competitive, helping to crowd out weeds; thrives in acidicsoils; more tolerant of close mowing than other fine fescues; does notstand up well to heavy foot traffic; prone to developing a thatch layer;spreads slowly by basal tillering; higher winter hardiness; is adaptedto well-drained, coarse textured, acidic, infertile soils. Creeping RedFescue (Festuca rubra var. rubra): creeping grass; helps to fill inareas that experience damage; drought resistant; requires littlenitrogen; does not form dense thatch layer; has low tolerance to closemowing; and tends to be aggressive and quicker to establish. SlenderCreeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra var. trichyoplylla and Festuca rubravar. littoralis): creeping grass; high salt tolerance.

The especially noteworthy object of the invention is the minimization ofthe presence of wildlife, and wildlife grazing and predation atairports. When maintained as monocultures through the invention'sconcurrent weed control methods, the fine fescue blends and mixes usefulin the invention are almost completely avoided by geese and otherflocking and non-flocking birds, which greatly minimizes or prevents thehighly dangerous commonplace occurrence of bird strikes by airplanes inthe air regions around airports which sometimes lead to plane crashes orother complications to the airplanes. Problematic foraging wildlife likedeer also do not prefer the grass blends and mixes of the invention. Theinvention confers a tremendous benefit of increased safety for animalsand birds at airports. Thereby, the invention also increases protectionboth to the wildlife and to people in situations where the wildlifeposes a threat to humans.

Though the mechanism of action is not necessary to practice theinvention, it is thought that this benefit is conferred presumably bynaturally occurring substances (defense mechanisms) in the plantmaterial. Some such defense mechanisms include endophytes contained inthe grass species. Endophytes are symbiotic fungi that live in certaingrasses. About 20-30% of all grass species contain some endophytes.Grasses provide substrates necessary for endophyte growth. Manyendophytes produce alkaloids, some of which are toxic to invertebratesand vertebrates. Also, endophyte infection has been shown to provideresistance to many foliar-feeding insects. Fine fescue typicallycontains Epichloe festucae. In turf grasses, transmission of endophytesis by seed and its entire life cycle takes place inside the planttissue. A plant does not become infected from its neighbors, therefore astrand of uninfected variety will remain uninfected. According to thepreferred embodiments of the invention, the seed mixtures utilized inthe application to the desired airfield contain fine fescue grasses. Inselecting the seed mixture according to the invention, fine fescuescontaining known higher levels of endophytic activity available at thetime are preferably selected. The seeds should be fresh, preferably, butnot necessarily, not more than 9 months old, and stored appropriatelyaccording to industry best practices.

Factors considered in designing the blends and mixes for use atairfields and surrounding areas according to the invention include thefollowing. The seeds of the invention are preferably planted in fall attemperatures ranging between 45° F. to 80° F. Cool evening temperaturesand gentle rains present ideal conditions. Fine fescue grasses areappropriate for northern “cool” and “transitional” climates where annualrainfall is of about 25 inches or more, with at least half arrivingduring the growing season. The plantings of the invention can be plantedand grown in direct sunlight, since airfields are generally greatlyexposed to the sun as well as the elements. The grasses of the inventioncan be planted on areas of any size at the airports. The conditions ofthe soil should be generally sandy, loamy, or well-drained clay soilswith at least four inches of good, loose topsoil.

In creating an airfield according to the invention, the airfield site isprepared pursuant to the methods herein utilizing the seed blends andmixes of the invention that will result in minimal grazing by wildlifeand low maintenance for the airport. As the first step of the operationof the invention, a soil test is performed. This will be typicallyperformed by a university-affiliated agricultural extension service. Theairfield site is first prepared according to standard industry practiceor directions provided by the county extension service providing thesoil test.

New installations on disturbed soil, including sloped sites, arehydro-seeded according to standard practice, except for the practicesdescribed herein. Any method of seeding is operable within the scope ofthe invention. For existing turf installations, all existing vegetationis eliminated prior to seeding with an appropriate herbicide approved bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), such as glyphosate, accordingto directions on the label. The process may need to be repeated a secondtime. After waiting two weeks, the growth is mowed as low as possible,exercising care to limit patches of thatch. It is preferred thatcrisscross back and forth mowing is performed by a flail-type mower togrind up the thatch, if necessary. The seed mixture of the invention isseeded at the recommended rate using a no-till or slit seeder. Typicallythis is the best method to limit exposure of the seed to wildlife and toensure seed-to-soil contact.

According to the method of the invention, fertilizer is not recommendedand should be applied sparingly, if at all. Fertilizers can be appliedonly in early spring or late summer as a slow-release and balancedfertilizer depending upon the soil test results. Nitrogen fertilizersare applied to stimulate leafy growth, which only increases the need formowing. High nitrogen fertilizers that stimulate top growth, whichrequires mowing, should be avoided. The application of excessivenitrogen fertilizer can actually damage fine fescue grasses, so minimalor no fertilization is recommended for the method of the invention. Thefine fescues of the invention will grow well in soils within a pH rangeof between 5.0 and 8.0. The optimum range is between 5.5 and 6.4,however within the method of the invention, once the grass isestablished, the pH is preferably kept below 6.2 to keep growth to aminimum.

Fine fescue grass forms dense sod that naturally reduces weed growth,minimizing the need for herbicides. If herbicides are needed, weeds canbe treated with an EPA approved product carefully following thedirections on the label. EPA approved herbicides will be necessary on anas needed basis in airfields or other installations where height is aconcern to control tall fescues and other turf grasses and weedy growththat exceed the height of the fine fescue, which typically will beapproximately 6 inches. This can be done by wicking the undesirablegrowth above the fine fescue, exercising care to avoid contact with thefine fescue, using standard wicking equipment and practices.

Geographical location and weather conditions will determine the bestseeding time. Typically, between late August and late September or earlyOctober is preferred for the method of the invention. Further south,seeding can be extended into late October. Fewer weeds germinate in fallseeding. Seeding in March to mid-May is a second choice. Weeds will bemore prevalent and may need to be treated.

According to the invention, the need for mowing will be significantlyminimized or eliminated. If desired, the grass seedheads can be mowed toapproximately 6 inches, as measured from the base of the grass blades atsoil level to the top of the grass blades, when seed heads of the grassappear, usually in early June. (Seedheads can shoot up quickly to astall as 21 inches but are not problematic because of their wispyappearance.) Mowing of the seedheads is recommended for airports to keepthe runway signs and lights fully visible. It is most preferable not tomow closer than 4 to 6 inches, more preferably to approximately 5 inchesfrom the base of the grass blades at soil level as this might damage theturf. A desirable procedure is to mow to the height of the existinggrass blades, cutting only the seedheads themselves and not the grassblades. It is recommended that mowing be done with a flail-type mowerthat will chop any vegetation, as opposed to leaving a layer that willsmother the growth below.

Geographic location, site conditions, seed availability, and localregulations will help in the choice of the seed mix and percentages. Itis preferred to utilize a mix of more than one hard fescue and anotherchewings fescue and creeping red fescue in lesser amounts, inconjunction with the one or more hard fescue varieties. Slender creepingred fescue can be included as a creeper possessing high salt tolerance.

The grass blades of and seed blends of the invention alleviate anyconcerns of height restriction requirements of the Federal AviationAdministration and specific airport guidelines because the grasses ofthe invention remain very short throughout their growth and in the eventthat they are not mowed by airport maintenance, the blades of the grasstumble gently at approximately 5 to 7, more particularly atapproximately 6 inches from ground level and prevent any heightconcerns. Seedheads develop over a short period in May or June and willbe taller, but their wispy appearance generally will not be problematic.Fertilization procedures of the invention (meaning little if anyfertilization) should be followed to limit the development of seedheads.Other local ordinances may be a factor in deciding on the particularspecies to be used. The State Department of Natural Resources outlinesthe guidelines regarding the species of plants that are permitted to beplanted in specific jurisdictions.

The seeds of the current invention are typically seeded in the fall at arate of between 180 to 260 lbs./acre, more preferably between 200 to 240lbs./acre, and most preferably at approximately 220 lbs./acre. In theembodiment of the airfield herein, sections of the airfield are mostpreferably seeded in late August or early September. Less preferablythey can be seeded through October, particularly in more temperateclimates. Though not preferred, it is possible that the seeding beperformed at other times of the year, since airports sometimes have nochoice but to seed once grading is complete. Following the initialinstallation, the following late spring, when soil temperatures remainabove 60° F., the weed cover within the turf stand is assessed. In areasfurther north, this may occur several weeks later in the season.

During initial establishment of the fine fescues according to theinvention, it is important to identify the perennial broadleaf weeds andbrush, and/or the annual broadleaf weeds. For small infestations ofperennial broadleaf weeds or brush, the area is spot sprayed with anEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved selective herbicide. Fora large infestation, a broadcast application of an EPA approvedselective herbicide may be necessary, following the label instructionsand manufacturer's recommendations for all herbicides applied, whichwill include the proper time to spray based on the weeds present. In theevent of the presence of annual broadleaf weeds and annual grasses, thearea is controlled according to the invention preferably in May or Juneby the annual mowing of the seedheads of the grasses of the invention.During the first year of their establishment, the grasses of theinvention are mowed a second time if desired, no less than 4 to 6inches, preferably 5 inches from the ground, which should be donepreferably in August in order to reduce the seedheads of the annual weedvegetation. In order to prevent potential areas where the seeds or grasshas not established or have been damaged, such areas are reseeded oroverseeded, preferably in late August or early September, at a rate ofbetween 180 to 260 lbs./acre, more preferably between 200 to 240lbs./acre, and most preferably at approximately 220 lbs./acre, followinginitial installation instructions.

The grasses of the invention are mowed only once annually when seedheads approach maturity in the late spring (in May or June). Anytechniques known in the industry for mowing are operable within thescope of the invention, but the use of a flail-type mower to mulch andcut the blades of the vegetation is preferred. The blades of the grassesherein are preferably cut to a height no less than 5 or 6 inches fromthe ground. Mowing on days when extreme heat and sun are forecast shouldbe avoided.

Yet another benefit of the compositions and methods of the inventionrelate to the increase of storm water infiltration due to deeper rootsystems of the compositions of the invention. With its deeper and largerroot systems, the compositions of the invention provide better soilstabilization than regularly mowed turf, which has shallow roots. Thelarger and deeper root systems are more effective in preventing erosion.

Yet another benefit of the compositions and methods of the invention isthe reduction of harmful gas emissions to the atmosphere. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates nationwide emissions ofambient air pollutants and the pollutants and their precursors. Theestimates are based on actual monitored readings or engineeringcalculations of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles,factories, and other sources. Emission estimates are based on manyfactors, including levels of industrial activity, technologicaldevelopments, fuel consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and otheractivities that cause air pollution. Emissions information is developedwith input from state and local air agencies, tribes, and industry. EPAtracks a range of emissions data, including how much of each pollutantis emitted from various pollution sources. The following are common airpollutants and their precursors: carbon monoxide (CO); lead (Pb);nitrogen oxides (NO_(x)); volatile organic compounds (VOC); direct PM₁₀direct PM_(2.5); and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Emissions of air pollutantscontinue to play an important role in a number of air quality issues. In2010, about 90 million tons of pollution were emitted into theatmosphere in the United States. These emissions mostly contribute tothe formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, andvisibility impairment.

In addition to the environmental and safety benefits of the turf grassuse according of the invention, airport turf grass management systemsaccording to the invention will bring tremendous financial savings tothe airports. As a result of national economic development andglobalization, and a general pattern of public sector subsidization ofaviation activity, increase in travel demand and consequent growth incommercial airlines and general aviation has lead to mounting investmentneeds. A report by R. H. Bates, Airport Financing: Whither (or Wither)the Market?, presented at Airport Operators Council InternationalEconomic Specialty Conference, Sacramento, Calif., Mar. 31, 1982, citesthe Congressional Office Budget estimates of data of the FederalAviation Administration, National Airport System Plan RevisedStatistics, 1980-1990, National Aviation System Development and CapitalNeeds for the Decade 1982-1991. The study estimates that airports willhave a capital total demand of $450-650 million for large commercialairports; $200-350 million for medium commercial airports; and $400-500million for small commercial airports. Of that amount, 5% of the demandis required for the maintenance of the airport for large and smallairports and 1% for medium airports. Consistent with the FAA's findings,an article in Miami Today by Risa Polansky, entitled, “Yearly airportcosts to nearly double in 2015, revenue streams sought” (Jul. 9, 2009),reports that the Miami-Dade Aviation's capital improvements programoperations expenses at the Miami International Airport is to face aprojected $500 million in new annual costs beginning in 2015. ChiefFinancial Officer Anne Lee noted that the rising costs are not asurprise to aviation officials, and is not accidental or unusual. Suchincreasing costs put a burden both on local governments and in turn onthe consumer resulting in greater taxes and travel costs to the public.

One intended benefit of a lower growing turf grass for airfield areas isthe reduction and frequency of mowing required to maintain those areas.These reductions lead to cost savings in labor and fuel, and reducedwear on maintenance equipment, and reductions in the numbers ofnecessary heavy equipment, as well as providing environmental benefitssuch as lower emissions. These economic benefits become more significantas the size of an airport increases and when applied over time. As fuelprices increase, the savings resulting from reduced mowing will alsoincrease.

The advantages to the Federal Aviation Administration from reducedmowing include reduced flush and mutilation of insects and animals inthe runway safety areas, which will lower the incidence of bird strikes;fewer weeds/grass species which are known to be wildlife attractants;fewer runway interruptions and closures when mowing is reduced;decreased operational impact—the reduction in mowing increasesoperational safety and reduction in ground traffic conflicts; anddeeper, more extensive root systems resulting in decreased storm waterrunoff, increased infiltration, and increased soil stabilization.

Though the disclosure herein relates to compositions and methods of theinvention directed mainly to airfield turf management, it will beapparent to those skilled in the art that the invention is equallyapplicable to compositions and methods of improved turf management ofroadsides, utility transmission corridor rights-of-way, golf courses,parks, lawns, campuses and any and all other low traffic areas where lowmaintenance, short turf grass and wildlife control are desirable.

The advantages of the invention are demonstrated by the examples below.The following examples are set forth to illustrate the composition andmethods of the invention and are intended to be purely exemplary of theuse of the invention and should not be viewed as limiting in its scope.

EXAMPLES

In 2009, the City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation (DOA) began astudy at the Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) to test the viabilityof the compositions of the invention. Beginning with successfully grownlandside plots, the ultimate goal of the study was to determine whetherthe seed mix would thrive on the harsh conditions of the airfield aswell as help to deter wildlife. Two airfield experimental plots, eachabout 1.25 acres in size, were seeded on Oct. 13, 2010. These plots weremowed just one time on Jun. 8, 2011, within the 16 month period. Twocontrol plots consisted of existing airfield turf grass.

On the fine fescue plots, it was recorded that the turf grass bladesachieved an average height of 6 inches in the experimental plots. Wispyseed heads developed over a short time span of two to three weeks in Mayto June, shooting up above the grass blades to as tall as 21 inches whencut to a height of 5 inches. The grass formed a dense sod except for afew areas impacted by the one annual mow, which occurred on a sunny daywith temperatures exceeding 100° F. and followed by a prolonged periodof drought. Approximately 30% of the experimental plots were reseeded onOct. 24, 2011 and have since filled in. Otherwise, the grass was foundto be sun and drought resistant. No fertilization was added. The plotsreceived no irrigation. No disease was noted, and the grass resistedweed encroachment well for a new installation. The plots were treatedonce for broadleaf weeds and foxtail/crabgrass during the 16 monthperiod on Aug. 30, 2011.

The following seed mixtures were some examples of the compositions ofthe invention planted and tested at various plots on the PNE airfield.The seeding rate per acre was 220 pounds.

Seed mix #1: Hard fescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars)at 50% to 100% of the seed mix by weight; Chewings Fescue (one or morestraight species and/or cultivars) may be 0% to 50% of the seed mix byweight; Creeping Red Fescue (one or more straight species and/orcultivars) may be 0% to 50% of the seed mix by weight. Minimumpurity=98%; Minimum germination=85%; Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #2: Hard fescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars)is 33.4% of the seed mix by weight; Chewings fescue (one or morestraight species and/or cultivars) is 33.3% of the seed mix by weight;Creeping red fescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars) is33.3% of the seed mix by weight. Minimum purity=98%; Minimumgermination=85%; Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #3: Chewings fescue (one or more straight species and/orcultivars) is 100% of the mix. Minimum purity=98%; Minimumgermination=85%; Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #4: Creeping red fescue (one or more straight species and/orcultivars) is 100% of the mix. Minimum purity=98%; Minimumgermination=85%; Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #5: Approximately 25% Firefly Hard fescue, 25% Aurora GoldFescue, 25% Intrigue Chewings Fescue, and 25% Edgewood Creeping RedFescue Minimum purity=98%; Minimum germination=85%; Maximum weedseed=0.15%;

Seed mix #6: Slender Creeping Red Fescue (one or more straight speciesand/or cultivars) is 100% of the mix. Minimum purity=98%; Minimumgermination=85%; Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #7: Hard fescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars)at 0% to 100% of the seed mix by weight; Chewings fescue (one or morestraight species and/or cultivars) at 0% to 100% of the seed mix byweight; Creeping red fescue (one or more straight species and/orcultivars) at 0% to 100% of the seed mix by weight; Slender creeping redfescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars) at 0% to 100% ofthe seed mix by weight. Minimum purity=98%; Minimum germination=85%;Maximum weed seed=0.15%;

Seed mix #8: Hard fescue (one or more straight species and/or cultivars)is 100% of the mix. Minimum purity=98%; Minimum germination=85%; Maximumweed seed=0.15%;

During the first step of the process, an herbicide was applied to killthe existing turf grass on the airfield test plots. The dead turf grasswas left to remain on the plots so as to prevent any erosion of thesoil. No earth disturbance was caused by the project. In the secondstep, after a period of approximately 14 days, the test plots weredrilled or slit seeded according to the protocol of the PhiladelphiaNortheast Airport with varying seed blends and mix compositions of theinvention on six different plots as follows:

Example 1

“A” represents the airfield experimental turf grass plots of 1.24 acresand 1.31 acres; plot “AC” represents the airfield control plots of equalsize; The precise location of the plots were at latitude N40 04″23.83″,longitude W75 00 19.94″ (NAD 83).

Soil samples of the test plots were tested by Penn State University. ThepH of the soil was found to be more acidic than expected, with a pH of5.4 and 5.5 (replicated tests), which are considered less than desirablefor the grass compositions of the invention. Lime was applied to thetest plots to raise the pH to about 6.0. The lime application waspelletized and applied at an approximate rate of 80 lbs. per 1000 squarefeet, with a composition of 50% dolomite and 50% calcite.

In order to demonstrate the effect of the seed blend and mixcompositions on wildlife management and reduction, the study team hereinmonitored the numbers and species of birds that presented on the plots.Bird activity was counted during 15 minute periods (point counts) andrecorded (by species) in biweekly dawn and dusk monitoring of theexperimental plots, as well as the control plots. (Mammal and unusualinsect activity were recorded on the data sheets, but not included inthe point count numbers.) The histograms shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 show thefrequency (in multiples of four) of birds observed during these pointcounts in the respective experimental and control plots. Table 2 setsforth the number of birds counted on each of the plot.

TABLE 2 Philadelphia Northeast Airport Bird Date Time A AC Oct. 27, 20108:07:00 3 0 Oct. 27, 2010 16:23:00  54* 0 Nov. 10, 2010 7:55:00 1 0 Nov.10, 2010 15:50:00  0 0 Nov. 24, 2010 8:05:00 0 0 Nov. 24, 2010 15:07:00 1 0 Dec. 08, 2010 7:55:00 0 0 Dec. 08, 2010 16:14:00  0 0 Dec. 22, 20107:54:00 1 1 Dec. 22, 2010 15:02:00  0 0 Jan. 05, 2011 8:16:00 0 0 Jan.05, 2011 15:34:00  0 0 Feb. 09, 2011 8:13:00 0 0 Feb. 09, 2011 15:04:00 0 0 Feb. 23, 2011 8:09:00 0 0 Feb. 23, 2011 15:10:00  1 0 Mar. 09, 20118:02:00 0 0 Mar. 09, 2011 14:58:00  0 0 Mar. 23, 2011 8:04:00 0 0 Mar.23, 2011 15:02:00   52**  12** Apr. 06, 2011 7:54:00 3 0 Apr. 06, 201115:00:00  4 0 Apr. 20, 2011 7:51:00 0 0 Apr. 20, 2011 15:08:00  0 0 May12, 2011 9:53:00 2 1 May 12, 2011 15:46:00  2 0 May 25, 2011 7:55:00 3 9May 25, 2011 15:00:00  0 1 Jun. 08, 2011 7:55:00 1 0 Jun. 08, 201115:34:00  0 0 Jun. 22, 2011 8:10:00 0 0 Jun. 22, 2011 16:03:00  0 0 Jul.06, 2011 8:01:00 10  1 Jul. 06, 2011 16:08:00  2 0 Jul. 20, 2011 8:05:001 1 Jul. 20, 2011 15:58:00  0 2 Aug. 03, 2011 7:11:00 0 0 Aug. 03, 201119:11:00  0 0 Aug. 17, 2011 7:17:00 2 4 Aug. 17, 2011 18:05:00  0 0 Aug.31, 2020 6:37 0 0 Aug. 31, 2011 17:37  0 0 Sep. 12, 2011 19:05  0 1 Sep.13, 2011 6:38 0 0 Sep. 28, 2011 8:22 0 0 Sep. 28, 2011 15:43  0 1 Oct.12, 2011 7:50 0 0 Oct. 12, 2011 15:38  0 0 Oct. 26, 2011 7:43 0 0 Oct.26, 2011 15:48  0 1 Nov. 09, 2011 8:00 0 0 Nov. 09, 2011 15:40  0 0 Nov.22, 2011 9:41 0 0 Nov. 22, 2011 15:30  0 5 Dec. 07, 2011 8:03 0 0 Dec.07, 2011 15:35  0 0 Dec. 20, 2011 8:25 0 0 Dec. 20, 2011 15:12  0 0 Jan.05, 2012 8:12 0 0 Jan. 05, 2012 15:11  0 0 Jan. 18, 2012 8:13 0 1 Jan.18, 2012 15:07  0 0 Feb. 01, 2012 8:14 0 0 Feb. 01, 2012 15:17  0 0Data: A = airfield experimental turf grass plot; AC = airfield controlplot *It is believed that the high count of mostly European Starlingbirds on Oct. 27, 2010 on plot “A” was due to the initial soildisturbance of the recent seeding on the first day of the study and wasanticipated. **It is believed that the high count of birds on Mar. 23,2011 on plot “A” was due to Ring-billed Gulls feeding on large number ofearthworms surfacing on the airfield and paved surfaces after heavyrains over the previous week. Immediately prior to the point countperiod, more gulls were found on the airfield control plot.

For each plot, it was calculated that the median and mean number ofbirds were as set forth in Table 3 as follows:

TABLE 3 A AC Median 0 0 Mean* 0.48 0.45 *Calculated by removing theoutlier counts of 54 and 52 on A and 12 on AC.

As seen from the graphs, the Department of Aviation study provedsuccessful, the lower turf grass required mowing only once per year,resulting in a tremendous reduction of effort and expense in mowing theairfield, which today at PNE is estimated to be mowed between 17 to 22during the course of a season (from April through November.) Bycomparison, the airfield control turf grass not only needed to be mowedas usual, but had high weed composition measuring in places up to 16inches between mowings.

The study showed the effects on bird deterrence on the airfield plotscontaining the seed blends and mixes of the invention. Removing the twoinstances of higher bird counts because the occurrences were unrelatedto the experimental grass, the mean averages drop to less-than-one birdin the experimental plot (A) and to less-than-one bird in the controlplot (AC). The data demonstrates the experimental plots did not attractmore birds than the control plots. This result was obtained even thoughthe experimental plots were mowed just once a year, while the controlplots received regular mowing throughout the growing season, having beenmowed 17 times. In fact, the landside plot data shows a significantreduction in wildlife as the plot matures into a monoculture through theinvention's method of selective herbicide control and carefully timedannual mowing. It is anticipated that as the experimental grass maturesinto thicker stands, there will be increasing reductions in wildlife.Immature stands of new grass, with more bare dirt areas exposed, arecommonly subject to higher numbers of wildlife.

Interviews were conducted with companies that perform commerciallarge-scale turf-grass installations. Estimates for the cost of mowingwere noted to range from $600 to $1800 per acre per year, depending onlocation, conditions, and number of mowings per year. As part of theresearch effort, general data and estimates of current PhiladelphiaDivision of Aviation (DOA) maintenance practices were collected forcomparison to maintenance efforts required for the airfield turf grassesof the invention. The cost of the initial planting of a traditional turfgrass seed mix used in the analysis varies depending on total acreage,construction phasing, the contractor performing the work, and otherfactors. For purposes of the analysis, a unit price per acre wasselected based on a review of historic airport bid prices for seeding.Costs of the initial planting of the turf grass seeds of the inventionwere provided by Native Return, LLC, of Lafayette Hill, Pa. In general,the cost for the traditional seeding was on a similar order of magnitudeas the cost for the seeding of the invention, and any variances from oneto the other were relatively inconsequential over the long term aspectof the analysis.

Specifically, the cost-benefit analysis was calculated for the airfieldsof Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE) and the PhiladelphiaInternational Airport (PHL). Table 4 sets forth the planting andmaintenance costs for the compositions of the invention comprising thefine fescue grasses of the invention. It was demonstrated over thecourse of the study that a significant reduction in mowing effort fromthe current practice of an estimated 22 mows per year at PHL, or anestimated 17 mows per year at PNE, is possible.

TABLE 4 Planting and Maintenance Costs for Compositions of the InventionCURRENT PRACTICE PROPOSED PRACTICE WITH TRADITIONAL WITH ALTERNATIVEAIRFIELD TURF GRASS AIRFIELD TURF GRASS ITEM (in 2010 dollars) (in 2010dollars) NET CHANGE Initial Planting For any sizable acreage $1500/acre¹ _(.)″ $1560/acre ¹.³ negligible Estimated Frequency of UpfrontMaintenance To Establish Turf Grass (within first year) BroadcastSpraying of Not performed 1 application/year (only in 1 application/year(only in lnvasives first 1 or 2 years) first 1 or 2 years) Overseeding•Not performed 1 application in first year 1 application in first yearestimated at equivalent of estimated at equivalent of 20%⁵ rate ofinitial planting 20%⁵ rate of initial planting Estimated Cost PerUpfront Maintenance Occurrence to Establish Turf Grass (within firstyear) Broadcast Spraying of Not applicable $100/acre ¹.³ $100/acreInvasives Overseeding Not aoolicable $312/acre′^(.)j $312/acre TotalUpfront Not applicable $412/acre  $412/acre new cost Maintenance . Cost(per acre) Estimated Frequency of Annual Maintenance Fertilizing Notperformed/required Not required — Mowing ⁰., PHL 22 PNE 17 I mow/yearPHL - 21 PNE - 16 mows/year mows/vear mows/year mows/year Estimated CostPer Annual Maintenance Occurrence Fertilizing $0/acre $0/acre $0/acreMowing″  $38/acre  $25/acre $38/acre $25/acre Total Annual $836/acre$425/acre $38/acre $25/acre $798/acre $400/acre Maintenance Cost savingssavings (per acre) Total Airfield Acreage PHL PNE PHL PNE PHL PNE(provided by DOA) 870.4 763.88 870.4 763.88 — — Total Initial Planting$1,305,600 $1,145,820 $1,357,824 $1,191,653 $1,357,824 $1,191,653 Cost(for entire airfield) Total Upfront $0 $0 $358,605 $314,719 $358,605$314,719 Maintenance Cost (for entire airfield) Total Cost of Initial$1,305,600 $1,145,820 $1,716,429 $1,506,372 $410,829 $360,552 Plantingand Upfront additional additional Maintenance (for entire cost costairfield) Total Annual $727,654 $324,649 $33,075 $19,097 $694,579$305,552 Maintenance Cost annual annual (mowing for entire savingssavings airfield) ¹Including labor, equipment, and materials. ² Based onhistoric bid prices. Prices can vary greatly depending on scope ofproject. In general, the price difference as compared with the lowergrowing alternative turf grass is relatively negligible considering thelong term cost savings. ³Provided by Native Return, LLC. Does notinclude cost of one mowing between killing of existing grass and seedingof meadow in the case of replacing existing turf grass. ⁴ Over-seedingrecommended within first year to cover bare spots and counteract anyinvasive weeds; estimated at equivalent of 20% of initial planting ratefor purposes of benefit-cost analysis. ⁵Provided by Native Return, LLC.⁶ Frequency and cost per acre of current mowing practices at PHL and PNEbased on data provided by DOA. ⁷ To maintain growth within FAA criteriaper FAA Advisory Circular FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous WildlifeAttractants On or Near Airports.

Based on the cost-benefit analysis, it was calculated that annualreductions in maintenance costs per acre at Northeast PhiladelphiaAirport (PNE) and Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), would beapproximately 95% of what they are today through the reduction in mowingto once per year. Reducing mowing to a once annual event by utilizingthe compositions according to the invention will save the PhiladelphiaDivision of Aviation in mowing expenses alone, a combined amount ofapproximately $727,655.00 (in 2010 dollars) per year at PhiladelphiaInternational Airport (PHL) and $324,649.00 per year at NortheastPhiladelphia Airport; which translates to a total savings over ten years(in 2010 dollars) of $7.3 million at PHL and $3.2 at PNE resulting in asavings of $10.5 million for the Philadelphia Division of Aviation forthe two airports combined. It is also noteworthy that this calculationdoes not include the additional potential reduction in wildlifemanagement expenses and runway interruptions.

In addition to reduction mowing costs, fewer mowing events result infewer runway interruptions, lower operational impact (with the reductionin mowing operations there will be a reduction in ground trafficconflicts), and fewer costs associated with anticipated wildlife strikes(mowing flushes and mutilated animals, birds and insects) as well asreduced wildlife management expenses.

Another benefit of the methods of the invention is the reduction of gasemissions. Given that the airfield turf grass of the invention requiresonly one mow per season, compared to the current average 22 mows,replacing current airfield turf grass would ultimately reduce emissionsfrom mowing operations to at least 1/21 of current practice, or areduction of 95% as illustrated in Table 6. As part of the study of theExample herein, the United States Environmental Protection Agency'sNONROAD model was used to calculate estimated pollutant emissions fromcurrent mowing equipment operations at the Philadelphia InternationalAirport (PHL) and the Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE).

Table 5 presents current estimated mowing emissions at PHL and PNE.

TABLE 5 Summary of Estimated Pollutant Emissions (Tons/Year) VOC NOx COS0₂ PM₁₀ PM_(2.5) PHL Current operations .70 .84 19.93 .03 .01 .01Projected with slower growing .03 .04 .95 <.01 <.01 <.01 turf PNECurrent operations .57 .11 15.93 .02 .01 .01 Projected with slowergrowing .03 .03 .76 <.01 <.01 <.01 turf grass Overall Estimated % 95%ReductionSource: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NONROADModel

Example 2

An additional study was performed on a 0.17 acres landside experimentalplot centered within the existing mowed grass control plot. Concurrentto the airfield study, the landside plot, one year more mature than theairfield plots, was included in the experiment and was monitored (forsame above parameters) throughout its second year. The plot was seededwith the turf grass according to the invention on Sep. 18, 2009. Theplot was mowed once per year—on Jun. 10, 2010 and on Jun. 22, 2011. Theturf grass achieved an average height of 6 inches prior to mowing. Itformed a dense sod except for one four-foot square area where crabgrassencroached. The plot was spot-treated for crabgrass and the spot wasreseeded Oct. 24, 2011. It has since filled in. The grass was found tobe sun and drought resistant. No fertilization was necessary. Noirrigation was necessary. No disease was noted, and the grass resistedweed encroachment well for a new installation. It was spot treated onceper year for scattered (infrequent) broadleaf weeds and crabgrass duringthe 28 month period.

Bird activity was counted during 15 minute periods (point counts) andrecorded by species in biweekly dawn and dusk monitoring of theexperimental plots, as well as the control plot. The data demonstratesthat the experimental plot did not attract more birds than the controlplot. This occurred even though the experimental plot was mowed justonce a year, while the control plot received regular mowing throughoutthe growing season (17 mows.) Although the landside plot was notreplicated, it was noted through regular observation that birds enteringthe experimental turf grass plot, located within the control plot, wouldquickly exit the experimental grass plot. There were, at various times,many birds feeding in the mowed turf grass control plot surrounding theexperimental turf grass plot, yet few if any within the experimentalplot. It was noted that when the birds would enter the experimentalplot, they would not linger, and instead relocate to continue feeding inthe control plot area.

The numbers of grasshoppers was fewer in the experimental plots comparedto the control plots. This was determined anecdotally by observing agreat reduction in the numbers of flushed grasshoppers when walkingthrough the plots of the invention compared to the control plots inAugust and September. Grasshoppers are a known major wildlife attractantto foxes, skunks, ground squirrels, moles, shrews, mice, pheasants,quail, crows, owls, sharp-shinned hawks, kestrels, cooper's hawks,herons and many song birds feed on them, as well as turkeys, frogs,toads, and lizards.

Example 3

Set forth in this Example 3 is a suggested seeding specification thatcan be utilized to grow the grass according to the invention herein on aplot having existing vegetation thereon. (For new construction sites,generally over one-half acre, hydro-seeding per industry standardpractices, except as described earlier, is the preferred method.)

Step 1—Soil Samples. The first step is to pull 6 to 12 soil samples to adepth of 5 inches throughout the site. The soil samples are combinedtogether and sent to a soil testing lab. The soil lab will send back theresults of the test and recommendations in the establishment of theseed.

Step 2—Herbicides. After green-up, and when existing vegetation isactively growing, an application of glyphosate should be applied tocontrol all growth, following the labeling instructions. A secondapplication may have to be applied to control all perennial and annualweeds.

Step 3—Drill Seeding. Approximately fourteen days after Step 2, the sitecan be seeded. A vibrating seed slicer is preferably used. The unitshould have seed slits with less than 4-inch centers. Two cross patternsshould preferably be done for best coverage. Approximately half the seedrate should be sliced in each pattern. This cross pattern method willhelp eliminate seeding skips. All areas around ground obstructionsshould be hand ruffed up and hand seeded at the seeding rates set forthhereinabove.

Acceptable seeding methods include hand seeding (small areas); push-typespreader; hand-cranked whirlybird-type seeder; turf slit-seeder; tractormounted broadcast seeder, such as a “Brillion” seeder; tractor mountedslit seeder; and hydro-seeder. When seeding by hand, with a push-typespreader, or whirlybird seeder, the seed should be raked into the soillightly and then rolled to ensure firm seed to soil contact.

Step 4—Soil Amendments. After Step 3 is complete, any soil amendmentshould be broadcast over the area. Care should be taken and all soilamendments should be applied also in preferably two or more crosspatterns for best coverage. Preferably slow release blended fertilizershould be used.

The environmental benefits to airports as a result of the use of thecompositions and methods of the invention are incalculable, includingprotection of human life and wildlife; reduced gas emissions fromdecreased mowing, decreased storm water runoff due to deeper and largerroot systems of vegetative cover, increased soil stabilization,moderation of airport temperatures and heat effects to the atmosphere,and tremendous financial savings to the aviation industry andconsequently to the public.

The particular embodiments described herein is provided by way ofexample and is not meant in any way to limit the scope of the claimedinvention. It is understood that the invention is not limited to thedisclosed embodiments, but on the contrary, is intended to cover variousmodifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit andscope of the appended claims. Without further elaboration, the foregoingwill so fully illustrate the invention, that others may by current orfuture knowledge, readily adapt the same for use under the variousconditions of service.

What is claimed is:
 1. A lawn seed mixture that produces grasses whichwildlife are more likely to avoid, said mixture consisting essentiallyof: (a) one third by weight Hard Fescue; (b) one third by weightCreeping Red Fescue; and (c) one third by weight Chewing Fescue, saidlawn seed mixture, when planted at a rate greater than about 220 lb. peracre, produces grasses with a deep and large root system which wildlifeare more likely to avoid.
 2. The lawn seed mixture of claim 1 whereinthe Creeping Red Fescue consists essentially of Slender Creeping RedFescue.
 3. The lawn seed mixture of claim 1, which includes seedmixtures having high endophytic activity.
 4. The lawn seed mixture ofclaim 1, which is substantially free of sheep fescue.
 5. The lawn seedmixture of claim 1, which is substantially free of bluegrass or ryegrassseeds.
 6. The lawn seed mixture of claim 1, which grows well in soilswith a pH between about 5.0 and 8.0.
 7. The lawn seed mixture of claim1, which grows well in soils with a pH between about 5.5 and 6.4.
 8. Thelawn seed mixture of claim 1, which produces grasses that requires oneor more of the following properties: little to no mowing; little to noirrigation; and little to no fertilizer.
 9. The lawn seed mixture ofclaim 1 that is suitable for use on one or more areas selected from thegroup consisting of: airfield turf, roadsides, utility transmissioncorridor rights-of-way, golf courses, cemeteries, parks, lawns andcampuses.
 10. A lawn seed mixture that is capable of producing wildliferesistant grasses in full sun, said mixture consisting essentially ofone or more fine fescues selected from the group consisting of: onethird by weight of one or more blends of hard fescues; one third byweight of one or more blends of creeping and/or slender creeping redfescues; and one third by weight of one or more blends of chewingsfescues, and combinations thereof, said lawn seed mixture, when plantedat a rate greater than about 220 lb. per acre, produces grasses in fullsun which grasses wildlife are more likely to avoid.
 11. The lawn seedmixture of claim 10 that is suitable for use on one or more areasselected from the group consisting of: airfield turf, roadsides, utilitytransmission corridor rights-of-way, golf courses, cemeteries, parks,lawns and campuses.
 12. An airfield turf lawn seed mixture that iscapable of producing wildlife resistant grasses in full sun, saidmixture consisting essentially of one or more fine fescues selected fromthe group consisting of: one third by weight of one or more blends ofhard fescues; one third by weight of one or more blends of creepingand/or slender creeping red fescues; and one third by weight of one ormore blends of chewings fescues.